I am in a similar situation of not being that concerned about God's existence but not an atheist. It often seems like the existence of God is approached like a for or against contest and, often this becomes a fierce battle. That is likely to be connected to the associations of religion, especially based on life experiences and, historically, religion has been emotive to the point of causing war.

At one stage, I was worried about ideas of hell and damnation. That lead me to question and think my way out of my Catholic or Christian background. However, atheism seems too stark and even though the images of God which I grew up with aren't helpful, I still wonder about the cosmological anthropic argument because there is no clear answer as to why evolution took place and even though consciousness is likely to have been emergent, there is no clear basis for understanding the existence of life or the spark of consciousness.

I have friends who are religious in a conventional sense, mostly Christian but a couple who are Muslim too. I find concrete or literal interpretations of Biblical texts extremely unhelpful. I was rather shocked to discover that one of my school friends believes in the story of Genesis literally, including specific individuals called Adam and Eve. When religious ideas are not balanced with science it may lead to a rather lopsided picture. I still find the Bible difficult to read because I come from Catholic associations and I feel fearful of the idea of the day of judgement and the issue of life after death, which is not dependent on belief in God but, nevertheless, the two are often linked together. However, I am aware of the Bible and other sacred texts as fantastic literary sources, which are able to capture a contemplative approach to life and existence in a different way to the model of science. So, I would argue that the strictly scientific approach to the God question, without respect for the symbolic aspects, misses something and the arts may be the 'missing link.'

I am certainly not of the opinion that one necessarily needs to believe in God. The way of seeing symbolic or numinous aspects through the arts is important and people's ability to do this is variable with many engaging in the arts for entertainment alone. I guess that I am saying that my own personal handling of the question is not a simple yes or no, and even agnosticism seems to be too much an aspect of tick box culture.

The question of agency is important and it can be too simplistic for people to simply seek explanations with religious beliefs, ignoring science. This is becoming harder, especially for those who approach philosophy. It just may go to the other extreme, with reality being seen and explained too rigidly according to the scientific model, with disregard for other perspectives. Rather than rely on science too emphatically, perhaps philosophy needs to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach.

In past eras the edges between art and science as played out in religious perspectives may have been blurry indeed. For example, there was the Christian story of the fall of the angels. It is hard to know to what extent this was based on Biblical traditions or the writing of John Milton's ' Paradise Lost'. However, the way in which I was brought up was as though such ideas were science. I remember telling my dad that a lot of the story of the fall seemed developed by Milton.

If anything the task may be to disentangle the ideas rather than fuzz them. But, definitely, the arguments about atheism on the forum are so different to the God who many pray to on a Sunday morning, as you suggest. I will even go as far as to say that when I began University I was going to Christian Union. The 'God' there was different from the forum. However, I can remember at the time in a class someone seemed surprised by some idea which I expressed saying, '..but you're in Christian Union'. I was being stereotyped and seen as 'Jack in a box'...

If anything, I am all in favour of juggling ideas from religious and all other perspectives. But,I don't mean that they should be fuzzed. What may be important is to separate aspects of science and art in order to appreciate both approaches in their own right.

fuzz them — Jack Cummins

If that's the main quest of your OP then here's my shot at disentangling art from science in re God. Science is about, as the late Stephen Hawking allegedly said, reading the mind of God (the laws of nature and nature itself simply God's thoughts). Art or rather our aesthetic turn is tasked with discerning the beauty in nature and its laws i.e. our duty, if we could call it that, is to first find out what God's thoughts are (science) and then marvel at them for their beauty (art).

For better or worse, even though the equations of mechanics may appeal to the aesthetician in you, they also describe in exquisite detail every ghastly injury people sustain in accidents and assaults!

Why do you assume "art, science and God" have anything to do with depicting "reality"? (Btw, follow the link highlit by "Agency".)

I don't see a response to anything I wrote in your reply. For instance, I didn't say or imply anything about needing or not needing "to believe in God". And since when, Jack, has (western) philosophy in the main not been inherently "multidisciplinary"?

To conceive full-blown heaven fundamental science and the arts are indispensable attributes. Without them we would never have been able to contemplate the motives and nature of the gods. The ultimate mystery remaining is their very existence, their divine power of true creation and the nature thereof.

I think art as a depiction of beauty ignores art's ability to depict or even celebrate evil and how art has been used by religion to depict the consequences of apostasy, for example. Arts depictions of Dante's 9 circles of hell are not beautiful in my opinion. Who would buy a really good, technically accurate oil painting of Adolf Hitler other than a neo-nazi?
What about an oil painting of the baby Jesus in its manger about to be lasered in the head by a time-traveling agent from the future? What would be the intent of such a painting? could such a painting be justified?
Or perhaps a painting of Jesus and his whole family getting chopped up by 10 ethnic cleansers who burst through their door and are killing every Jew in the room?
I am sure I could come up with far worse if I put my mind to it. Can an angel make love to a devil and enjoy it? They certainly can in art. Art like music are tools that can be used for almost any purpose, good or bad.
I cant see art as offering any bridge between religion and science by means of the fact that Richard Dawkins can enjoy the same piece of classical music or like the same painting as a theist might. They can also cite examples of both that one likes and the other thinks is crap.
I don't think the common ground between theism and atheism will be found in art.
I think the common ground will be found in time! We are a fledgling consciousness, we have yet to even leave our planetary nest.

What about an oil painting of the baby Jesus in its manger about to be lasered in the head by a time-traveling agent from the future? — universeness

Or perhaps a painting of Jesus and his whole family getting chopped up by 10 ethnic cleansers who burst through their door and are killing every Jew in the room? — universeness

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! Apopstasist?

I think the common ground will be found in time! We are a fledgling consciousness, we have yet to even leave our planetary nest. — universeness

Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though! :wink:

I cant see art as offering any bridge between religion and science by means of the fact that Richard Dawkins can enjoy the same piece of classical music or like the same painting as a theist might — universeness

And art that would offer a bridge?

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! Apopstasist? — EugeneW

Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though — EugeneW

Is fantasy currently under theistic ownership?

And art that would offer a bridge? — EugeneW

Theists and atheists can both enjoy an 'artist's impression' of a new, perhaps even Earthlike planet, discovered orbiting around a distant star due to the 'wobble' it causes in the star it orbits. But the theist will still suggest god created it and the atheist will still suggest 'no god required,' and the beat goes on and the artist moves on to his/her next 'impression.'

Or perhaps a painting of Jesus and his whole family getting chopped up by 10 ethnic cleansers who burst through their door and are killing every Jew in the room?
— universeness

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! Apopstasist? — EugeneW

I could have went much further, for example, the artist could include different versions of such a painting and have the 10 ethnic cleansers painted as chopping up Jesus and every arab/black/gay/gerry/jap/pomme/asian/indian/slave/yankee/rebel/frenchie/irish/jacobite/heathen atheist in the room but, its a lot of work for one artist and I think I've missed too many groups from our 10,000 years of tears.

How about a painting of the prophet Mohamed? Can that still get you killed?

Is fantasy currently under theistic ownership? — universeness

What makes you question that? I just say that the fantasy will always remain a fantasy. Let's face reality with a proper dose of realism. Where have we been in almost 70 years? On the Moon, 1 lightsecond away...

But the theist will still suggest god created it — universeness

Im a theist. They didnt create that planet. It evolved.

An interesting quality in Zhuangzi is how the big questions of what should be predicated of the world keep being interrupted by perceptions of why some things persist while others don't. And the dynamic does not permit either approach to supplant the other. Otherwise, the contrast would stop being a difference.

Why do you assume "art, science and God" have anything to do with depicting "reality"? (Btw, follow the link highlit by "Agency".) — 180 Proof

:up: 180 Proof!

And since when, Jack, has (western) philosophy in the main not been inherently "multidisciplinary"? — 180 Proof

Since the day it's about one thing only: science, knowledge.

Im a theist. They didnt create that planet. It evolved. — EugeneW

This sounds like a very familiar road for you and I EugeneW. You don't match or come close to any theist I know, you know I remain unconvinced of your theism.

What makes you question that? — EugeneW

What do you mean?

I just say that the fantasy will always remain a fantasy. — EugeneW

Yeah, especially your fantasies of god(s).

Let's face reality with a proper dose of realism. — EugeneW

Doctor, heal thyself first!

Where have we been in almost 70 years? On the Moon, 1 lightsecond away... — EugeneW

70 years is hardly a single human lifetime, a spacetime blink! There will be a moon base soon enough. Easier to launch from there as opposed to Earth.

Is fantasy currently under theistic ownership? — universeness

I meant, why is it?

Doctor, heal thyself first! — universeness

It's alright uni, next week same time? Don't forget to make an appointment at the reception!

70 years is hardly a single human lifetime, a spacetime blink! There will be a moon base soon enough. Easier to launch from there as opposed to Earth. — universeness

If distance doubles every generation you would be right. But it doesn't.

There will be a moon base soon enough. Easier to launch from there as opposed to Earth. — universeness

In how long? And then? To Mars? And then? Pluto? And then? Then it gets reaeaealy hard...

You don't match or come close to any theist I know — universeness

I think Im closer than allothem!

I am sorry if I did not address the points in your post. I will look at it again. I am struggling with thinking about the question which I raised. I am wondering where metaphysics comes into the picture and was reading a book on that yesterday. I will look at your points in relation to this a bit later today because I am just getting up.

I meant, why is it? — EugeneW

We are talking past each other again. You suggested my suggestions for paintings were mere fantasy and I was basically saying so what? are you suggesting that only theists can fantasize? That's all I was saying.

If distance doubles every generation you would be right. But it doesn't — EugeneW

Again I don't know what you mean here. Lost in translation somewhere between Dutch English and Scots English!

In how long? And then? To Mars? And then? Pluto? And then? Then it gets reaeaealy hard... — EugeneW

Don't worry ya big fearty, we have lots of time, we like reproducing. Maybe after we exist outside our planet and inside our solar system we can build generational ships or many many hops between space stations that we built between here and Proxima!

We are talking past each other again. You suggested my suggestions for paintings were mere fantasy and I was basically saying so what? are you suggesting that only theists can fantasize? That's all I was saying. — universeness

Where did I say or suggest that? Everyone can fantasize. Like in a painting of genes to which strings are attached making the human puppet move. This is how Dawkins sees humans. It's his fantasy. He claims though thag this is reality, and that's the danger. Thinking your fantasies are real or can ever can be realized.

Yeah, especially your fantasies of god(s). — universeness

Gods are no fantasies. Only in your mind.

Don't worry ya big fearty, we have lots of time, we like reproducing. Maybe after we exist outside our planet and inside our solar system we can build generational ships or many many hops between space stations that we built between here and Proxima! — universeness

Dream on spacer! What if we have arrived on that faraway planet? Will we mess it up again? What if every planet is colonized?

Where did I say or suggest that? — EugeneW

What??

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! — EugeneW

Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though! — EugeneW

Dream on spacer! What if we have arrived on that faraway planet? Will we mess it up again? What if every planet is colonized? — EugeneW

You miss the main practical point I made. The more planets/space stations etc we exist on, the harder it is to make us extinct. If we are all on one planet then we can be made extinct quite easily.

What??

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni!
— EugeneW

Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though!
— EugeneW — universeness

I don't put a limit on your fantasies. You can fantasize whatever and how much you like. Just keep an eye on what's fantasy and what's real.

You miss the main practical point I made. The more planets/space stations etc we exist on, the harder it is to make us extinct. If we are all on one planet then we can be made extinct quite easily. — universeness

We get extinct not that easily. But if on all these planets we introduce the western way we'll get extinct easily even there.

However, it could be that the idea of God is a metaphorical truth, and that may be how Einstein saw the idea of God, and Jung too. — Jack Cummins

That's always been my working assumption when approaching he question of God and talking to others about God. I'm the son of Roman-Catholic parents who grew up to be an atheist by increment, without any notable outside input. As my worldview matured, my concept of God didn't mature alongside it. Apparently, I was a pretty naturalist-minded kid in elementary school. A couple of years ago I met my old religious-education teacher, who remembered me better than I remembered her. She said it's hard to forget a kid defending the honor of snakes when hearing about the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. Apperently, what I took from the story at the age of six was that it slandered snakes. (In German, the word "Schlange" is used both for serpent and snake, so it would have been the same word.) I have no memory of this myself, but it sounds like something I could have said.

So when all you have is a maldeveloped concept of God that remained undifferentiated from early childhood on, you'll have trouble believing that otherwise smart people would believe something so obviously stupid, so you develop a sort of split sense of meaning: my God, the one I specifically don't believe in, is different from your (general "you") God, the one you do believe in, though they're both gods grown in the same cultural soil. (I also don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or Amaterasu - but with the exception of Odin I've never talked to a believer). So how do we bridge the gap?

I've always thought metaphor, thinking of something in terms of something else, is pretty much the only hope there is. Take a the idea of a "creator God". I have to approach the creation part as a metaphor for it to make sense. And you have to bracket some question: it doesn't, for example, make sense to ask what God created the universe from, or who created God. I know it makes no sense to ask these questions only because of the reactions of theists when I ask them. No metaphor is complete. You circle around all the questions you can think of, and cross out the ones that the people trying to communicute with you don't find helpful. Then the questions you have left may or may not create a useful image for you. Nothing useful ever emerged for me, and I'm not really optimistic it'll happen in the future, since of most of the stuff I hear on that issue isn't new.

Basically, there's this metaphor with an extensive vehicle but not tenor at all. I don't get it. The only reason I bother(ed) at all to understand the topic at all is social. Spriitually this is all empty talk to me.

But here's the thing. What I have to approach as metaphor, someone else might have encoded differently and there may be no need to understand something in terms of something else. If someone's got an integretated understanding of "creation" such that God creating the universe isn't essentially different from a watchmaker making a watch or a sculptor making sculpture, then there'd be no need for a metaphorical layer to intervene.

And that might be why "God" is evident. This isn't scientific evidence. It's a basic intuition of a type that didn't grow in me.

But at the same time, that's not the whole picture, because there are atheists who deconverted from a believe in God, which involved rational thought. And this where I start getting confused when I think about "metaphor". It's obviously possible to think about God rationally and go from "God exists," to "God doesn't exist." I didn't have that experience. The experience was closer to "Wait, they really do believe in God, and they don't just pretend like with the Easter Bunny?" Though it wasn't a singular experience and it was far less tangible a development than that.

Basically, the only thing about God that really interests me is how minds work. Maybe the cognition of metaphor? Not quite sure.